Quitting before we lose any further

[unixronin]

“Prohibiting a market does not mean destroying it,” ­[Lev] Timofeev said.  What it means is placing a “dynamically developing market under the total control of criminal corporations”.

The Financial Times has an article by Matt Engel discussing why it's time to admit that the War on Drugs has been a dismal failure.  The longer the world's nations continue to enforce the drug cartels' monopolies, the better business is for the drug cartels.  And that IS what the War on Drugs does:  It enforces the drug cartels' monopolies with all the might the Northern Hemisphere's governments can bring to bear.  This is folly.  The ONLY way to break the drug cartels is to undercut their market by making drugs freely available at or near production cost, and it'll eliminate the "forbidden fruit" factor into the bargain, along with the massive economic and civil-liberties cost of drug prohibition.

If the War on Drugs has any value at all to society, it is only as clear and obvious evidence that our governments are unable or unwilling to learn from experience.

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That said, while I agree that trade in drugs is victimless, often to finance drugs people prey on others. I would like to see absolutely draconian penalties for those who prey on others to further their habit.

While this is true, the theory of the argument — a theory which the evidence of legalization in the Netherlands and Portugal supports — is that eliminating the elevated price pressure of drug prohibition eliminates much of the associated drug-financing crime too. The closer to cost the drugs are available, the more this should be the case.

Unfortunately it will do nothing about those who prey on others simply as a lifestyle choice because they consider it easier than working. That is where I am inclined to think the draconian penalties truly belong.

Of course, a greater preponderance of armed citizenry would tend to deter both...